Pfizer Leads Jump in Pharmaceutical Lobbying

Large pharmaceutical companies may benefit from more customers under the Affordable Care Act, but they still lobby for fewer regulations in order to reduce the cost of bringing a new drug to market.

New York-based Pfizer Inc., the largest research-based pharmaceutical company, reported spending $2,380,000 in the third quarter, up $850,000 (55%) from the $1,530,000 they reported spending in the second quarter of 2013. Pfizer develops and produces vaccines and medicines such as Lipitor, Diflucan, Lyrica, Zithromax, Viagra, and Celebrex.

Comments (3)

ivan

Oct. 25, 2013
9:14 a.m.

If anyone ever wonders what is wrong with our elected, pay attention to the money going to members of congress from lobbyist of every type…then look at the breaks all of these companies are getting. ANd our congressional reps are complaining about wasteful spending on entitlements to us tax payers. While handing our huge breaks to all of the big companies and corporate farms. Lets not forget the millions being sent to other nations while some of our own starve.
Over 20 millions from Pharmaceutical Companies alone…more than that from other manufacturing companies. JUst yesterday republicans were pushing for more cuts to entitlements so their military businesses could make more money. Their idea is to pay companies but let our nation go without health care , food or jobs. Tell me how many jobs bills have passed the house that did not have cuts for the wealthy ?

Malcolm Kantzler

Oct. 25, 2013
9:23 p.m.

The hypocracy of Pfizer lobbying for “consumer protection and safety” is gigantic when viewed in the light of it closing its facilities to research drugs to combat resistant KPC bacterias, which, for pan-drug strains, according to last week’s Frontline, kills one-third of the ever-growing numbers of patients infected, and otherwise requires drastic surgical measures to remove infections. According to the Center for Disease Control, all antibiotic-resistant infections kill more than 1 percent of 2,000,000 who are infected each year, and anyone who undergoes surgery in hospital or who has open-skin wound is at risk, making drug-resistant bacterial infections more affecting to the public safety than HIV. Yet, for “portfolio” reasons, a company with one of the best records and with the greatest resources of minds and process to develop effective drugs pulls out.

“Portfolio” decision, cited by Pfizer’s CEO, means that the cost of R&D to pursue effective drugs does not project to provide sufficient returns for investors, which points squarely at the failure of naked capitalism to serve the public need, and the failure of public (Wall Street) companies which prioritize capitalist dictates to act according to public safety and welfare, even if that’s their business, which is why the capitalist system is inappropriate for all endeavors, healthcare being chief among them.

What chance is there to save lives that are going to continue to be lost to drug-resistant infections if the leading companies in the fight are allowed to drop their swords because they deem the weight of the fight is too costly; not that they won’t make profit on the short-term delivery drugs needed, but that the profit won’t be enough, as it is for life-time dose drugs.

Aside from nationalizing or mandating non-public ownership of health-related companies, one solution is to mandate that companies like Pfizer continue with R&D on less profitable drugs they are expert with in exchange for extending the patent rights on their more profitable drugs, like Lipitor, which is exactly what Congress should act immediately to accomplish. The only other option is to adequately fund government development of such drugs, with government to reap the rewards of success, which of course, Republicans will object to on the basis of government inability and largess, when what they really object to is interference in corporate capitalism and/or failure of government to subsidize business if business does not take on the public-welfare responsibilities which conscionable businesses should and, in the case of Pfizer, proves they won’t accept.

Malcolm Kantzler

Oct. 26, 2013
7:59 a.m.

The hypocrisy of Pfizer lobbying for “consumer protection and safety” is gigantic when viewed in the light of it closing its facilities to research drugs to combat resistant CRE/KPC bacterias, which, for pan-drug strains, according to this week’s Frontline, kills one-third of the ever-growing numbers of patients infected, and otherwise requires drastic surgical measures to remove infections, this in National Institute for Health Hospital, where every conceivable measure was taken to quarantine the spread. According to the Center for Disease Control, with fragmented reporting of statistics, all antibiotic-resistant infections kill more than one percent of 2,000,000 who are infected each year, and anyone who undergoes surgery in hospital or who has open-skin wound is at risk, making drug-resistant bacterial infections more affecting to the public safety than HIV/AIDS. Yet, for “portfolio” reasons, a company with one of the best records and with the greatest resources of minds and process to develop effective drugs pulls out.

“Portfolio” decision, cited by Pfizer’s CEO as the reason to end R&D on these dangerous drug-resistant strains, means that the cost of R&D to pursue effective drugs does not project to provide sufficient returns for investors, which points squarely at the failure of naked capitalism to serve the public need, and the failure of public (Wall Street) companies (which prioritize capitalist dictates) to act according to public safety and welfare, even if that’s their business, which is why an unregulated capitalist system is inappropriate for all endeavors, healthcare being chief among them.

What chance is there to save lives that are going to continue to be lost to drug-resistant infections if the leading companies in the fight are allowed to drop their swords because they deem the weight of the fight is too costly; not that they won’t make profit on the short-term delivery drugs needed, but that the profit won’t be enough, as it is for life-time dose drugs?

Aside from nationalizing or mandating non-public ownership of health-related companies, one solution is to mandate that companies like Pfizer continue with R&D on less profitable drugs they are expert with in exchange for extending the patent rights on their more profitable drugs, like Lipitor, which is exactly what Congress should act immediately to accomplish. The only other option is to adequately fund government development of such drugs, with government to reap the rewards of success, which of course, Republicans will object to on the basis of government inability and largess, when what they really object to is interference in corporate capitalism and/or failure of government to subsidize business if business does not take on the public-welfare responsibilities which conscionable businesses should and, in the case of Pfizer, proves they won’t accept.

About Political MoneyLine

Political MoneyLine is about following money in politics. It's a cash register for givers, receivers and those who want to watch the flow.

Kent Cooper has been uncovering and counting political money since 1972, when new disclosure laws took effect. He was assistant staff director for the Federal Election Commission's disclosure office for 22 years.

Tony Raymond was at the FEC for more than 20 years, analyzing reports and serving as the FEC's first webmaster.

They currently produce the Political MoneyLine website on CQ.com and developed its earlier versions: FECInfo, Public Disclosure Inc., and Tray.com.